Chambers v. Maroney

{{Use American English|date=September 2025}} {{Use mdy dates|date=September 2023}} {{Infobox SCOTUS case |Litigants=Chambers v. Maroney |ArgueDate=April 27 |ArgueYear=1970 |DecideDate=June 22 |DecideYear=1970 |FullName=Chambers v. Maroney, Correctional Superintendent |USVol=399 |USPage=42 |ParallelCitations=90 S. Ct. 1975; 26 L. Ed. 2d 419 |Prior=408 F.2d [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/408/1186/450578/ 1186] (3d Cir. 1969) (affirmed) |Subsequent= |Holding= |Majority=White |JoinMajority=Burger, Black, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall |Concurrence=Stewart |JoinConcurrence= |Concurrence/Dissent=Harlan |JoinConcurrence/Dissent= |NotParticipating=Blackmun |LawsApplied=U.S. Const. amend. IV }}

'''''Chambers v. Maroney''''', 399 U.S. 42 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court applied the ''Carroll'' doctrine<ref>''See'' {{ussc|name=Carroll v. United States|volume=267|page=132|pin=|year=1925}}.</ref> in a case with a significant factual difference—the search took place after the vehicle was moved to the stationhouse. The search was thus delayed and did not take place on the highway (or street) as in Carroll.<ref>Compare {{ussc|name=Preston v. United States|link=|volume=376|page=364|pin=|year=1964}}, and {{ussc|name=Dyke v. Taylor Implement Mfg. Co.|link=|volume=391|page=216|pin=|year=1968}}, where the Court held that a search incident could not be conducted later at the stationhouse.</ref> After a gas station robbery, a vehicle fitting the description of the robbers' car was stopped. Inside were people wearing clothing matching the description of that worn by the robbers. They were arrested, and the car was taken to the police station where it was later searched.

==Opinion of the Court== The Court first held that the search could not be sustained as a search incident to arrest (SITA). It quoted at length from Carroll that a search of a movable vehicle is treated differently under the Fourth Amendment because the mobility of the vehicle alone can easily defeat the warrant requirement.<ref>''Chambers v. Maroney'', 399 U.S. at 48-49, quoting ''Carroll'', 267 U.S. at 153-54.</ref> If there is probable cause to believe the vehicle contains criminal evidence and there exist exigent circumstances where the vehicle can be removed from the jurisdiction, a warrantless search would be reasonable.<ref>''Chambers'', 399 U.S. at 50-51: ''But the circumstances that furnish probable cause to search a particular auto for particular articles are most often unforeseeable; moreover, the opportunity to search is fleeting since a car is readily movable. Where this is true, as in ''Carroll'' and the case before us now, if an effective search is to be made at any time, either the search must be made immediately without a warrant or the car itself must be seized and held without a warrant for whatever period is necessary to obtain a warrant for the search.'' See also id. at 51 n. 9.</ref> It made no constitutional difference here that the search followed the seizure because the probable cause which developed on the street still existed at the station house (where the vehicle was impounded).<ref>''Chambers'', 399 U.S. at 52. Compare {{ussc|name=United States v. Edwards|link=|volume=415|page=800|pin=|year=1974}} (overruled on other grounds by {{ussc|name=United States v. Chadwick|link=|volume=433|page=1|pin=|year=1977}} and diverged from by {{ussc|name=California v. Acevedo|link=|volume=500|page=565|pin=|year=1991}} (a delayed seizure of clothing from an arrestee was not an unreasonable search), and {{ussc|name=United States v. Van Leeuwen|link=|volume=397|page=249|pin=|year=1970}} (delay of mail in transit to allow probable cause to develop).</ref> For this purpose, it is significant to note that the automobile exception and the SITA doctrine are quite different.

==Aftermath== Companion cases, including ''Perini v. Colosimo'',<ref name="Perini">399 U.S. 519 (1970).</ref> ''Crouse v. Wood'',<ref name="Crouse">399 U.S. 520 (1970).</ref> ''Hocker v. Heffley'',<ref name="Hocker">399 U.S. 521 (1970).</ref> and ''Kelley v. Arizona'',<ref name="Kelley">399 U.S. 525 (1970).</ref> were vacated in ''per curiam'' opinions and respectively remanded to the Sixth Circuit,<ref name="Perini"/> Tenth Circuit,<ref name="Crouse"/> Ninth Circuit,<ref name="Hocker"/> and Arizona Supreme Court,<ref name="Kelley"/> "for further consideration in light of ''Chambers v. Maroney''". In each case the ''per curiam'' opinion noted that Justice Harlan would have remanded "for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in ''Chambers''".<ref name="Perini"/><ref name="Crouse"/><ref name="Hocker"/><ref name="Kelley"/>

==References== {{reflist|2}}

==Further reading== Chambers is discussed in: *Note, 75 Dick L Rev 511 (1971); *Note, 46 Ind L J 257 (1971); *Comment, 47 Notre Dame Law 668 (1972); *Note, 7 Tulsa L J 197 (1971); *Note, 23 Vand L Rev 1370 (1970). *Heisse, Warrantless Automobile Searches and Telephonic Search Warrants: Should the ''Automobile Exception'' be Redrawn?, 7 Hast Const L Q 1031 (1980).

==External links== *{{caselaw source | case=''Chambers v. Maroney'', {{Ussc|399|42|1970|el=no}} | googlescholar = https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2193054308612397767 | internetarchive ={{IA SCOTUS URL |id=micro_IA40386413_0203}} | justia=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/399/42/ | loc =http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep399/usrep399042/usrep399042.pdf | oyez =https://www.oyez.org/cases/1969/830 }}

Category:United States Supreme Court cases in 1970 Category:United States Supreme Court cases Category:United States Fourth Amendment case law Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court